DOJ-OGR-00021903.jpg
377 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
4
Organizations
2
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal ruling / appellate decision (conclusion page)
File Size:
377 KB
Summary
This document is the final page of an appellate court ruling (Case 22-1426) dated December 2, 2024. The court affirms the June 29, 2022, conviction of Ghislaine Maxwell, rejecting five specific points of appeal, including arguments regarding the statute of limitations, jury instructions, sentencing reasonableness, and the claim that Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with the Southern District of Florida barred her prosecution in New York.
People (2)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ghislaine Maxwell | Defendant/Appellant |
Subject of the prosecution and appeal; the court affirmed her conviction.
|
| Jeffrey Epstein | Deceased Financier / Sex Offender |
Mentioned regarding his Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with USAO-SDFL.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| USAO-SDFL |
United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida; party to Epstein's NPA.
|
|
| USAO-SDNY |
United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York; prosecuted Maxwell.
|
|
| District Court |
The lower court whose judgment and sentencing were being appealed.
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice (inferred from Bates stamp DOJ-OGR).
|
Timeline (2 events)
2022-06-29
Judgment of conviction for Ghislaine Maxwell.
District Court (SDNY)
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Jurisdiction of the USAO that signed Epstein's NPA.
|
|
|
Jurisdiction where Maxwell was prosecuted.
|
Relationships (2)
The document discusses whether Epstein's NPA protected Maxwell from prosecution.
Epstein had a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with USAO-SDFL.
Key Quotes (2)
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (752 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 121-2, 12/02/2024, 3637741, Page26 of 26
1. The District Court did not err in holding that Epstein’s NPA
with USAO-SDFL did not bar Maxwell’s prosecution by USAO-
SDNY.
with USAO-SDFL did not bar Maxwell’s prosecution by USAO-
SDNY.
2. The District Court did not err in holding that the Indictment
was filed within the statute of limitations.
was filed within the statute of limitations.
3. The District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying
Maxwell’s Rule 33 motion for a new trial.
Maxwell’s Rule 33 motion for a new trial.
4. The District Court’s response to a jury note did not result in a
constructive amendment of, or prejudicial variance from, the
allegations in the Indictment.
constructive amendment of, or prejudicial variance from, the
allegations in the Indictment.
5. The District Court’s sentence was procedurally reasonable.
For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the District Court’s June
29, 2022, judgment of conviction.
29, 2022, judgment of conviction.
26
DOJ-OGR-00021903
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document